Despite being the season of giving gifts and pronouncing awards the International Olympic Committee yesterday decided to play Scrooge, and I don't blame it. Its reticence in redistributing the ill-gotten gains of Marion Jones may look like a simple piece of procrastination but the seemingly simple task of automatically awarding the relevant medals to the next best finisher has increasingly had its own pitfalls.

As investigations such as the Balco case in the United States become more commonplace there is always the possibility that more postdated suspensions will occur and with it more embarrassment for all and sundry as the medals are collected in again. This has always been a difficult area and in the past people such as Sharon Davies gained nothing from later revelations and indeed evidence that some of those who beat her to medals, in her case in the pool, had been part of a systematic programme of doping.

None of those named had ever failed a test and therefore it was not deemed right to take the medals from them. That, though, was in the 1980s and we live in very different times where thankfully there is a much stronger urge from all concerned to attack doping abusers from whichever angle is relevant.

The issue facing the IOC in this case is primarily one of integrity in the final result. By that I mean it will be anointing new Olympic champions in three events and elevating others into medal positions. At least three of those athletes who would benefit from this process have in the past been involved in controversial decisions around doping accusations with perhaps Katerina Thanou of Greece being the most high-profile case. The IOC quite rightly wants to be sure that whoever the medals are next passed on to are as clean as the shiny pieces of metal themselves.

The time may be upon us where the easier solution might be not to award the tainted medals to anyone and just leave the rectified result as the only correction required. The problem with this is that the entirely innocent athletes would again be the ones to suffer. If cheats have been discovered, no matter how much after the fact, then it is only right that those who play by the rules are justly rewarded with the medals and titles that were stolen from them. But is that ever enough recompense?

Sport is about interaction with your competitor and how that is played out does not always give a simplistic result. I have seen athletes run a poor semi-final, find themselves advanced to the final by some other athlete's disqualification and then, given another chance, go on to win or at least gain a medal. If you come up against the eventual champion in the first round of the boxing competition and he is later found to be cheating, who should get the gold? The beaten finalist or one of his previous combatants?

You can take away the medal from the cheat but you cannot alter the influence that person had on his or her opponents and indeed the overall result. I'm not quite sure what the answer is here but the IOC and other federations probably need to take a good look at this issue and have some clear policy for when a Jones-type scenario rears its head again.

At the moment the decision to look at it on a case-by-case basis is understandable, but they must make sure that they do not leave themselves open to ridicule or contempt by placing medals around the necks of any individuals who turn out to be equally unworthy of the award. There have been some amusing situations arising over the years when athletes have been given the good news that they've been upgraded.

One of my fellow north-east running stars was Mike McLeod of Elswick Harriers. Micky always had a healthy mistrust of the authorities and when Martti Vainio of Finland tested positive in the 1984 Olympics he wanted to be sure of his own improved position. He was notified that the bronze medal he had initially won in the 10,000m behind the cheating Finn was now to be swapped for a silver and it would be dispatched to him as soon as he sent the medal in his possession back to the IOC.

The canny Geordie asked the IOC to send the new medal first, in case the committee changed its mind. The IOC obliged and he is apparently still the owner of two medals for the same event, as he never got round to sending the bronze back. Don't tell the IOC. It has enough spare medals still to dish out!